I found that this was the case with Eclipse.
When I first started learning Java a lot of people told me to start with NetBeans because it's easier, comes with a lot of predefined functionality and most of the configuration is done by default. Indeed it seemed like an easy IDE but I just hated the way it looked. The UI to me was horrible.

Then I downloaded Eclipse. I was pretty impressed with it. Everything looked shiny, fonts looked awesome and the UI in general was amazing compared to NetBeans'. So I stayed with Eclipse.

Has something like this ever happen to you? Should the UI be of such a relevance to a programmer, is this bad ? The problem of the UI extends to everything for me, not only IDE's (e.g. even on linux I have to customize the WM the way I want before starting working with it).

closed as not constructive by Mark Trapp Dec 17 '11 at 3:42

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

8

I find it interesting how aesthetics differ between people. I find Eclipse to be hideously ugly. I actually prefer the look of NetBeans. For me, it's NetBeans' incredible slowness that turned me off to it.
–
John KraftNov 1 '10 at 0:32

Good UI is hard, that's why UI design has its own stack site. Programs with better GUIs are better programs. It may be the uglier program has some nicer features, but unless you require those features, its often not worth the effort of looking for them.
–
CodexArcanumNov 1 '10 at 14:54

Yes. It may be a biased point of view, but I like working with pretty user interfaces, and if the developer has gone to the time and trouble to make his user interface pretty (and intuitive), I assume that he has taken the same care with the rest of his program as well.

As a developer writing programs for others, you should have the same concern about your own UI.

Heck, even command line apps have an 'interface', in that some use cryptic and difficult to type parameters while others use more thought out and easier to remember parameters.
–
GrandmasterBNov 1 '10 at 5:31

A couple years ago I 'refreshed' a product's GUI - moving it from a bland Win95-ish look to something more modern. The app still worked essentially the same as it did - same menus, same toolbar layout - it just had a slicker color scheme and more modern looking icons and controls. A number of users commented on how the app was easier to use with the new GUI.

Thats just the nature of GUI's.

A cleaner GUI makes the available functionality more readily understood to the end user, and thus easier to figure out. It also looks more modern and up to date, providing the end user with extra confidence in the quality of the app.

I think sometimes the mental toll that certain UIs take is very subtle. I will often find myself switching between different UI experiences based on what kind of task I need to perform.

If I need to quickly get in-and-out of a lot of different config files, vim on the terminal is perfect. If I need to do a lot of typing, but don't need code-completion or debugger, TextMate or MacVim fit the bill. If I'm working heavily on multiple classes at once, and need to run tests or debug, I'll boot up the IDE.

I honestly believe that there is such a thing as too much interface. In my IDE, I will often find myself staring blankly at the project-pane trying to find the next file I need to work in. For me, when my fingers leave the keyboard, I tend to start to lose focus. Anything you that forces you to make a choice that isn't relevant to the problem you're working on is going to steal focus and concentration. Often, IDE are simply too widget-heavy.

We should know by now that in software, aesthetics and function are usually tied together.

Definitely. For instance, my Eclipse vs. NetBeans decision went in favor of NetBeans. Recently I started using Sublime Text editor. It's a good editor, but what differentiates it from dozens of other good editors out there is exactly the UI.

Personally, I don't really care about UI. Terminal programs work well, so do GUIs, and terminal ones take less memory. The UI isn't really an element for me unless it enables more productivity, like say firefox over w3m (at least for me).

I'm sure it's a innate human bias to believe the prettier tool works the best, and, in the absence of any real obstructions of use, to choose that tool.

I realised a while ago that, the 'flatter' look a browser has, the more I believe it is a lighter and therefore faster browser. I use Chrome because it 'feels' lighter, although I have no real evidence it is a better browser to Firefox. Whilst I know this may be an illusion, I just like using it more.

It's quite silly to prefer form over function, in my opinion. That's not to say the two can't be combined, but since the question is whether we prefer a certain program just because it looks better, the answer is no.

Hudson is a continouos build engine which slowly is migrating into a distributed script engine, which just happens to be nice. Nice in its approach to how things are done, nice in how errors are reported, and nice in how it looks.

This common trait shows though very quickly when using Hudson and was the main factor that caused us to stay with Hudson.

So, the graphics are not exceptional, but nice, and indicative of the Hudson program in general.

Sure. I'm moving a number of my projects to Visual Studio 2010 from older versions. Partly it's so I can use the same tool on all my projects, partly it's because of all the great extensions for 2010, and partly it's because 2010 looks nicer and has a nicer UI. Productivity is the name of the game for software developers and if you are more relaxed and happy using a tool, you're more productive.

That said, "looks better" is in the eye of the beholder. I can't tell you how many times I've been told that Expression (Blend, Web etc) "looks better" than Visual Studio. I hate the black look, I hate that all the menus and toolbars behave differently depending on the thing you click first, I hate the tiny font and I hate that it's so cluttered and clicky oriented. I use it only when I have to. That proves I guess that I choose my tools based on looks when I can, but my point is one person's "looks better" is another "I hates it".

Not really. I don't have any design taste - my GUIs tend to be rather garish to other people! What matters to me in a UI is: How easily and quickly can I get to what I need to do? If the most common tasks I need are buried in submenus under hidden switches, and can't be customized out to main menus (or better yet, buttons and shortcut keys) than I hate it.

There is a flip side to this too, though. If the common things are easy to do, but more complex stuff is hard to find, then the UI is equally bad. IMO the perfect example of this is Office 2007. All the basic operations are right up top; but if you need hanging indents, columns, or more advanced formatting options, they are harder to find. With the old menus, I could usually at least make an educated guess as to where the option was.

The fact that Actors get paid more than most of us should tell you something, UI is very important! Its the same reason why people buy iPad over xxx though all they are gonna do is watch a couple of movies on it.

In my case, I have switched out of eclipse into vi mainly because my standards of gui were too high, coming in from VS. I use reddit over digg / bash.org over other clones / SO over mailing lists etc. for the same reason.